The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[Electrofreak]

Because it wasn't a vote.

In fact it was, I participated in that exact vote. Voters were allowed to pick the top 3 options they were most interested in seeing CIG develop.
It says as much on the page: Please select your top three options!

Again, he is your Nightmare, not mine. I won't count myself as speaking for any other carbon-based life-form. Why do I want to look at a Twitter stream, I'm not on Twitter. The backwards timeline gives me a brain ache, without even reading anything!
I don't live my life jumping to attention at the first thing some guy writes on Twitter, or someone else writes on this thread.

I find your lack of faith disturbing

I personally appreciate your objectivity.

At the end of the day, I'm a fan of space sims. My favorite game of all time is Freespace 2, followed closely by the Homeworld games, etc. And seeing the space game genre start to come back has been an immensely exciting experience for me. Seeing Elite come back from the ashes, and new games like No Man's Sky or Infinity: Battlescape suddenly appear has sparked my nostalgia. Star Citizen is extremely ambitious, probably too ambitious, but I want to see it succeed. And here is where my undies get put into a knot, when I see people, in the name of the fans, of the backers, of the genre, actively trying to destroy that ambition.

I'm sorry that Derek wasn't able to produce Galactic Command Online. I'm sorry that Line of Defense has received such a poor response. But those aren't my problems either. And now here he is, trying to "cut the poppy". And it's frustrating as hell. He doesn't speak for me as a backer, though he pretends to. And he'll use this thread as his soapbox for as long as he can.

Perhaps it doesn't bother you, but I imagine there are some people in this thread that would like to see the discussion continue sans the drama.

So, as the newcomer, I'm going to try not to contribute to the drama and keep to the facts. If anyone has any questions on specifics about Star Citizen, I'll be happy to answer them and provide supporting references where possible.

 

[Ian Phillips]

I will remind everyone here one last time.

This thread is to discuss the game Star Citizen. Nothing else.

Please keep your posts on topic. Thank you.

 

[ianw]

I'm sorry that Derek wasn't able to produce Galactic Command Online. I'm sorry that Line of Defense has received such a poor response. But those aren't my problems either. And now here he is, trying to "cut the poppy". And it's frustrating as hell. He doesn't speak for me as a backer, though he pretends to. And he'll use this thread as his soapbox for as long as he can.

Perhaps it doesn't bother you, but I imagine there are some people in this thread that would like to see the discussion continue sans the drama.

So, as the newcomer, I'm going to try not to contribute. If anyone has any questions on specifics about Star Citizen, I'll be happy to answer them.

I have a question.

Can you stop talking about Derek and his game and talk about Star Citizen?

When can we expect SQ42?

 

[Stigbob]

Proof, Mr. Smart. Please show us where you can purchase 12800 aUEC for $12.75.


EDIT - Thread, apparently I've been reported for badgering. It suits Derek to see his critics banned so he can continue his misinformation campaign unopposed.

At this point, all I'm interested in is seeing Derek back up his statements regarding Star Citizen with actual facts.

Unfortunately (and this is easily witnessed on Derek's Twitter, his blog, his steam page, the SomethingAwful forums) Derek has a habit of simply banning whomever disagrees with him.

Thus, I'll be taking care to address my responses in a fair and clinical fashion.

There's no conspiracy, I reported you for personal attacks on another forum user.

 

[1500]

I see two sides to this, at this stage I don;t think this feature is bad per se.

I mean in ED you lose a ship you pay insurance, it's just the same in SC but if you wait 20 minutes it's free.

In all honesty I find it an interesting solution (not entirely sure if it's a good one though). One of the complaints with ED is the grind cost for just having fun with the game, people are risk averse due to insurance costs. People go off the handle at simply being attacked by another player and at least part of that is due to the credit cost of losing a ship.

Waiting as an alternative? It's an idea, and in that respect certainly a potential solution, just not sure though.

Where it potentially falls down is yes if people can pay money to bypass, that for me is a step too far and it does push down the "Candy Crush" path. I mean sure it can be said well it's just optional for those with money to spend but let's be honest this is the argument made by every single mobile game developer ever.

Difference is that CIG are selling insurance as well and have made a big deal out of LTI, yet they are adding a secondary level to that insurance in order to make people pay anyway.

 

[Taren Reichhardt]

Quite a lot of misinformation in this thread.

2.4, which is the upcoming patch and currently tested is indeed there to bring persistence. This is an important change to Star Citizen and quite complex and far reaching in it's consequences. Basically on the live server all information are stored locally, think about hangar configuration, ship loadout, or reset with each session, like Crusader universe. The upcoming change means that this information is stored server side and kept between sessions. To test this a currency that exists only for testing was brought into game. Think about credits you can earn and spend in Elite Dangerous. They exist only within the server environment and have no real monetary value. Also this currency is about to get wiped and reset at regular intervals.

If that sounds familiar then you are correct. Elite Dangerous moved in roughly the same pattern, from a few mission scenarios to a small persistent universe, to a larger one and then to release.

Oh I am also a long term backer of Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen.

A certain other individual called the 2.0 patch impossible and faked last year until it was released. The same person said that the procedural generation of planets in Elite Dangerous would not be possible.

 

[dsmart]

LMAO = Total Votes: 34481

'Nuff said. -_-

That's not even correct.

And the link he previously posted, had NOTHING to do with backers voting to increase the scope of the game. It had to do with the funding (see real-time spreadsheet)

1) Nov 12, 2012 (less than $3m raised at this point) // POLL : ADDITIONAL STRETCH GOALS

https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12760-Poll-Additional-Stretch-Goals

Total Votes: 31901

​

2) Sept 17, 2013 ($19m) // POLL: WHAT TO DO WITH THE CROWD-FUNDING COUNTER AFTER GOALS REACHED

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million

Total Votes: 20904​

 

[Electrofreak]

I will remind everyone here one last time.

This thread is to discuss the game Star Citizen. Nothing else.

Please keep your posts on topic. Thank you.

Understood; I assume the related title, Squadron 42 is included. However, I am curious however if this means the discussion regarding CIG/RSI, the development team behind the project, are considered off-topic?

Personally I hope so, it would go a long way in taming some of the drama.

I have a question.

Can you stop talking about Derek and his game and talk about Star Citizen?

When can we expect SQ42?

Squadron 42 is supposed to be delivered by the end of 2016. Obviously that's a subject of much debate.

 

[proKar_garlic]

I'm sorry that Derek wasn't able to produce Galactic Command Online. I'm sorry that Line of Defense has received such a poor response. But those aren't my problems either. And now here he is, trying to "cut the poppy". And it's frustrating as hell. He doesn't speak for me as a backer, though he pretends to. And he'll use this thread as his soapbox for as long as he can.

That's it, that video Cut the Poppy! That video puts it nice and clean across the board! Says it all actually!
That video is the summary of this charade, envy, bitterness, fear of the ambition.

That video is epic, must watch for everyone!

 

[ianw]

Is there an ETA for switching off falling through the floor?

 

[dsmart]

Nope, funny enough no one said people didn't have a say in stretch goals, that's was just you trying misdirection in order to ignore the actual statement. You should go back and reread what was actually said and start over. Then provide facts that have any relevance to what was said, not what you changed it to,.

What people stated was that the Players didn't have a say in SC's expanding scope and feature creep, feature creep that would delay the game and push everything back. Stretch goals were presented as expanding the game after release, or features that they already wanted to do but would have waited until after release, but don't worry they would not effect the launch of the game. hahaha

^this. All of it. That is all.

 

[Electrofreak]

Difference is that CIG are selling insurance as well and have made a big deal out of LTI, yet they are adding a secondary level to that insurance in order to make people pay anyway.

What might your source be on that? If you're referring to waiting-to-draw-a-ship mechanic, that's a test server mechanic as an Insurance system hasn't been implemented yet.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Really, you're just trying to generate drama. God, it's like a bunch of girls in high school in here.

You walk into a den of fans anywhere and start telling them they're all wrong, and what do you think is going to happen?

It's this dumb crap that's going to lock this thread.

Why some of you guys are so desperate to close this thread?Is it the truth that hurts so much?
And yeah there is no need for dirty words....I see you are new in here so you should figure by now that most of us are older mature gentleman's and even when some of us do "bad mouthing" we choose the right words for it(no insults)........no excuse even if the English is not your native language couse it's not my either..

 

[ianw]

Understood; I assume the related title, Squadron 42 is included. However, I am curious however if this means the discussion regarding CIG/RSI, the development team behind the project, are considered off-topic?

Personally I hope so, it would go a long way in taming some of the drama.



Squadron 42 is supposed to be delivered by the end of 2016. Obviously that's a subject of much debate.

Well based on CR's comments he didn't seem very hopeful about getting it out the door this year - and coming from him that's pretty much a stone cold certainty it's not going to happen - just wondered if the narrative has been revised since then

 

[proKar_garlic]

Pledging a kickstarter it's not a signing a contract with a stipulated time. It's backing an idea subject to change. Avoid being Poppy Cutters.

 

[dsmart]

... I really don't know how I can explain any clearer so for the sake of both of our sanities I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.




This is moving into a different argument of whether it's worth the spending - I remember CR talking about how the mo-capping would surpass Ryse: Son of Rome - a game that was notable for being very pretty and also a terrible game. Not a comparison I would have used.

...or that the fps in Star Marine would be better than Call Of Duty.

That was five months ago.

With the 2.4 update, here is a 5v5 gameplay "attempt". Five years, $114 million later.

[video=youtube;aTL4CBHTbvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL4CBHTbvI[/video]

 

[Electrofreak]

Is there an ETA for switching off falling through the floor?

I know you're trying to bait me, but I'll answer honestly.

The falling through the floor is related to legacy CryEngine netcode that doesn't play nice with the local grid system that CIG has developed to keep all the things inside of a ship.

That netcode is apparently going through a rework to incorporate the new Item System 2.0 that is on the Star Citizen Alpha PTU which is supposed to allow better handling of object positions and states in the game environment.

 

[ianw]

Pledging a kickstarter it's not a signing a contract with a stipulated time. It's backing an idea subject to change. Avoid being Poppy Cutters.

It's giving money for something in return. All those people who think it's a pledge should just do everyone a favour, hand over their game accounts and flalr and the rest of the stuff and just give CIG more money.

I came in after kickstarter - I don't give a stuff about saving PC gaming - people like you can do that so people like me don't have to.

I just want what I bought and was told I was going to get a year and a half ago.

 

[Asp Explorer]

What might your source be on that? If you're referring to waiting-to-draw-a-ship mechanic, that's a test server mechanic as an Insurance system hasn't been implemented yet.

What is the purpose of a test server mechanic but to test the mechanics?

If they want to implement some form of ship rebuy purchase, using whatever currency they want (real-life or in-game) then it's mechanics will need testing. The only reason they would be testing such a thing is if they had a plan to implement it.

It smells a bit like Dungeon Keeper.

 

[dsmart]

Actually Max didn't really post in other sections of the forum, I think he had like 2 in other games sections, and none in ED.

It is really unknown what the funding graph shows or what it counts, or even if its true. We know it counts physical goods, and that it counts the full sale of physical goods (even if CIG does not make any money on it). There are also some odd spikes that happen on that graph as well. Anyway, yes according to the graph the sale is going ok, I think its the worse one yet though. But then again, like you said, its a small fighter in a game filled with small fighters, I would hardly expect it to sell well.

If you really want to be cynical, you could point out the fact that CIG could have just fixed the Cutlass and turned it into the ship they promised the buyers, instead of creating a new ship and charging people for it. Seems like creating a crappy ship and then making a better ship to replace it, then selling said ship, makes CIG money. That is not a good direction to see in a company go, or an action you want to see in a company. Makes the company seem like they only care about making new money instead of providing the products that have already been purchased.

It's a new ship which was never even in the ship charts. They already had lots of backers holding an IOU on the Cutlass. So not much money there. So yeah, new ship. Why not?

Same thing with SQ42. They had a bunch of backers with IOU who already owned it. No growth there. So they split it from Star Citizen (PU). The SQ42 sales from the split of course tanked spectacularly.